6/18/2017 BrillantesJrvsConcepcion:163193:June15,2004:J.

CallejoSr:EnBanc:Decision

ENBANC

[G.R.No.163193.June15,2004]

SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR. petitioner, vs. JOSE CONCEPCION, JR., JOSE DE

VENECIA, EDGARDO J. ANGARA, DR. JAIME Z. GALVEZ, TAN, FRANKLIN
M.DRILON,FRISCOSANJUAN,NORBERTOM.GONZALES,HONESTOM.
ISLETA,ANDJOSEA.BERNAS,petitionersinintervention,vs.
COMMISSIONONELECTIONS,respondent.

DECISION
CALLEJO,SR.,J.:

BeforeusisthepetitionforcertiorariandprohibitionunderRule65oftheRulesofCourtfiledby
Atty.SixtoS.Brillantes,Jr.,avoterandtaxpayer,seekingtonullify,forhavingbeenissuedwithgrave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, Resolution No. 6712 dated April 28,
2004 approved by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) En Banc captioned GENERAL
INSTRUCTIONSFORTHEELECTRONICTRANSMISSIONANDCONSOLIDATIONOFADVANCED
RESULTSINTHEMAY10,2004ELECTIONS.[1]Thepetitioner,likewise,praysfortheissuanceofa
temporaryrestrainingorderand,afterdueproceedings,awritofprohibitiontopermanentlyenjointhe
respondentCOMELECfromenforcingandimplementingthequestionedresolution.
After due deliberation, the Court resolved to require the respondent to comment on the petition
andtorequirethepartiestoobservethestatusquoprevailingbeforetheissuancebytheCOMELEC
oftheassailedresolution.ThepartieswereheardonoralargumentsonMay8,2004.Therespondent
COMELEC was allowed during the hearing to make a presentation of the Electronic Transmission,
ConsolidationandDissemination(PHASEIII)programoftheCOMELEC,throughMr.RenatoV.Lim
ofthePhilippineMultiMediaSystem,Inc.(PMSI).
The Court, thereafter, resolved to maintain the status quo order issued on May 6, 2004 and
expanded it to cover any and all other issuances related to the implementation of the socalled
election quick count project. In compliance with the resolution of the Court, the respondent, the
petitionerandthepetitionersininterventionsubmittedthedocumentsrequiredofthem.

TheAntecedents

OnDecember22,1997,CongressenactedRepublicActNo.8436[2]authorizingtheCOMELECto
use an automated election system (AES) for the process of voting, counting of votes and
canvassing/consolidating the results of the national and local elections. It also mandated the
COMELEC to acquire automated counting machines (ACMs), computer equipment, devices and
materialsandtoadoptnewelectoralformsandprintingmaterials.
The COMELEC initially intended to implement the automation during the May 11, 1998
presidential elections, particularly in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM). The
failure of the machines to read correctly some automated ballots, however, deferred its
implementation.[3]

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/163193.htm 1/23
6/18/2017 BrillantesJrvsConcepcion:163193:June15,2004:J.CallejoSr:EnBanc:Decision

In the May 2001 elections, the counting and canvassing of votes for both national and local
positions were also done manually, as no additional ACMs had been acquired for that electoral
exercisebecauseoftimeconstraints.
On October 29, 2002, the COMELEC adopted, in its Resolution No. 020170, a modernization
programforthe2004electionsconsistingofthree(3)phases,towit:
(1)PHASEIComputerizedsystemofregistrationandvotersvalidationorthesocalledbiometrics
systemofregistration
(2)PHASEIIComputerizedvotingandcountingofvotesand
(3)PHASEIIIElectronictransmissionofresults.
Itresolvedtoconductbiddingsforthethreephases.
On January 24, 2003, President Gloria MacapagalArroyo issued Executive Order No. 172,[4]
whichallocatedthesumofP2,500,000,000toexclusivelyfundtheAESintimefortheMay10,2004
elections.
OnJanuary28,2003,theCOMELECissuedanInvitationtoBid[5]fortheprocurementofsupplies,
equipment,materialsandservicesneededforthecompleteimplementationofallthreephasesofthe
AESwithanapprovedbudgetofP2,500,000,000.
On February 10, 2003, upon the request of the COMELEC, President Gloria MacapagalArroyo
issuedExecutiveOrderNo.175,[6]authorizingthereleaseofasupplementalP500millionbudgetfor
theAESprojectoftheCOMELEC.Thesaidissuance,likewise,instructedtheDepartmentofBudget
andManagement(DBM)toensurethattheaforementionedadditionalamountbeusedexclusivelyfor
theAESprescribedunderRep.ActNo.8436,particularlytheprocessofvoting,countingofvotesand
canvassing/consolidationofresultsofthenationalandlocalelections.[7]
On April 15, 2003, the COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 6074 awarding the contract for
PhaseIIoftheAEStoMegaPacificConsortiumandcorrespondinglyenteredintoacontractwiththe
lattertoimplementtheproject.Onthesameday,theCOMELECenteredintoaseparatecontractwith
Philippine MultiMedia System, Inc. (PMSI) denominated ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION,
CONSOLIDATION & DISSEMINATION OF ELECTION RESULTS PROJECT CONTRACT.[8] The
contract, by its very terms, pertains to Phase III of the respondent COMELECs AES modernization
program. It was predicated on a previous bid award of the contract, for the lease of 1,900 units of
satellitebasedVerySmallApertureTerminals(VSAT)eachunitconsistingofanindoorandoutdoor
equipment,toPMSIforpossessingthelegal,financialandtechnicalexpertisenecessarytomeetthe
projectsobjectives.TheCOMELECboundandobligeditselftopayPMSIthesumofP298,375,808.90
asrentalsfortheleasedequipmentandforitsservices.
Inthemeantime,theInformationTechnologyFoundationofthePhilippines(ITFP),filedapetition
for certiorari and prohibition in this Court for the nullification of Resolution No. 6074 approving the
contract for Phase II of AES to Mega Pacific Consortium, entitled and docketed as Information
Technology Foundation of the Philippines, et al. vs. COMELEC, et al., G.R. No. 159139. While the
casewaspendinginthisCourt,theCOMELECpaidthecontractfeetothePMSIintrenches.
On January 13, 2004, this Court promulgated its Decision nullifying COMELEC Resolution No.
6074awardingthecontractforPhaseIIoftheAEStoMegaPacificConsortium.Alsovoidedwasthe
subsequentcontractenteredintobytherespondentCOMELECwithMegaPacificConsortiumforthe
purchase of computerized voting/counting machines for the purpose of implementing the second
phaseofthemodernizationprogram.PhaseIIoftheAESwas,therefore,scrappedbasedonthesaid
DecisionoftheCourtandtheCOMELEChadtomaintaintheoldmanualvotingandcountingsystem
fortheMay10,2004elections.
On the other hand, the validation scheme under Phase I of the AES apparently encountered
problemsinitsimplementation,asevincedbytheCOMELECspronouncementspriortotheelections
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/163193.htm 2/23
6/18/2017 BrillantesJrvsConcepcion:163193:June15,2004:J.CallejoSr:EnBanc:Decision

that it was reverting to the old listing of voters. Despite the scrapping of Phase II of the AES, the
COMELEC nevertheless ventured to implement Phase III of the AES through an electronic
transmissionofadvancedunofficialresultsofthe2004electionsfornational,provincialandmunicipal
positions,alsodubbedasanunofficialquickcount.
SenatePresidentFranklinDrilonhadmisgivingsandmisapprehensionsabouttheconstitutionality
of the proposed electronic transmission of results for the positions of President and VicePresident,
andapprisedCOMELECChairmanBenjaminAbalosofhispositionduringtheirmeetingonJanuary
28,2004.HealsowroteChairmanAbalosonFebruary2,2004.Theletterreads:

DearChairmanAbalos,

ThisistoconfirmmyopinionwhichIrelayedtoyouduringourmeetingonJanuary28ththattheCommission
onElectionscannotandshouldnotconductaquickcountontheresultsoftheelectionsforthepositionsof
PresidentandVicePresident.

UnderSection4ofArticleVIIoftheConstitution,itistheCongressthathasthesoleandexclusiveauthorityto
canvassthevotesforPresidentandVicePresident.Thus,anyquickcounttobeconductedbytheCommission
onsaidpositionswouldineffectconstituteacanvassofthevotesofthePresidentandVicePresident,whichnot
onlywouldbepreemptiveoftheauthorityoftheCongress,butalsowouldbelackingofanyConstitutional
authority.Youconcededthevalidityofthepositionwehavetakenonthispoint.

Inviewoftheforegoing,weaskedtheCOMELECduringthatmeetingtoreconsideritsplantoincludethevotes
forPresidentandVicePresidentinthequickcount,towhichyougraciouslyconsented.Thankyouverymuch.[9]

The COMELEC approved a Resolution on February 10, 2004 referring the letter of the Senate
PresidenttothemembersoftheCOMELECanditsLawDepartmentforstudyandrecommendation.
Aside from the concerns of the Senate President, the COMELEC had to contend with the primal
problemofsourcingthemoneyfortheimplementationoftheprojectsincethemoneyallocatedbythe
OfficeofthePresidentfortheAEShadalreadybeenspentfortheacquisitionoftheequipment.All
thesedevelopmentsnotwithstanding,anddespitetheexplicitspecificationintheprojectcontractfor
Phase III that the same was functionally intended to be an interface of Phases I and II of the AES
modernizationprogram,theCOMELECwasdeterminedtocarryoutPhaseIIIoftheAES.OnApril6,
2004,theCOMELEC,incoordinationwiththeprojectcontractorPMSI,conductedafieldtestofthe
electronictransmissionofelectionresults.
OnApril27,2004,theCOMELECmetenbanctoupdateitselfonandresolvewhethertoproceed
withitsimplementationofPhaseIIIoftheAES.[10]Duringthesaidmeeting,COMELECCommissioner
Florentino Tuason, Jr. requested his fellow Commissioners that whatever is said here should be
confinedwithinthefourwallsofthisroomandtheminutessothat walang masyadong problema.[11]
Commissioner Tuason, Jr. stated that he had no objection as to the Phase III of the modernization
projectitself,buthadconcernsaboutthebudget.HeopinedthatotherfundsoftheCOMELECmay
not be proper for realignment. Commissioners Resurreccion Z. Borra and Virgilio Garcillano also
expressedtheirconcernsonthebudgetfortheproject.CommissionerManuelBarcelona,Jr.shared
the sentiments of Commissioners Garcillano and Tuason, Jr. regarding personnel and budgetary
problems.CommissionerSadainthenmanifestedthattheconsiderationforthecontractforPhaseIII
hadalreadybeenalmostfullypaidevenbeforetheCourtsnullificationofthecontractforPhaseIIof
the AES, but he was open to the possibility of the realignment of funds of the COMELEC for the
funding of the project. He added that if the implementation of Phase III would not be allowed to
continue just because Phase II was nullified, then it would be P300,000,000 down the drain, in
addition to the already allocated disbursement on Phase II of the AES.[12] Other concerns of the
CommissionerswereonthelegalityoftheprojectconsideringthescrappingofPhaseIIoftheAES,
aswellastheoperationalconstraintsrelatedtoitsimplementation.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/163193.htm 3/23
6/18/2017 BrillantesJrvsConcepcion:163193:June15,2004:J.CallejoSr:EnBanc:Decision

Despitethedireandseriousreservationsofmostofitsmembers,theCOMELEC,thenextday,
April 28, 2004, barely two weeks before the national and local elections, approved the assailed
resolution declaring that it adopts the policy that the precinct election results of each city and
municipality shall be immediately transmitted electronically in advance to the COMELEC, Manila.[13]
For the purpose, respondent COMELEC established a National Consolidation Center (NCC),
Electronic Transmission Centers (ETCs) for every city and municipality, and a special ETC at the
COMELEC,Manila,fortheOverseasAbsenteeVoting.[14]
Briefly,theprocedureforthiselectronictransmissionofprecinctresultsisoutlinedasfollows:
I.TheNCCshallreceiveandconsolidateallprecinctresultsbasedonthedatatransmittedtoitbyeach
ETC[15]
II.EachcityandmunicipalityshallhaveanETCwherevotesobtainedbyeachcandidateforallpositions
shall be encoded, and shall consequently be transmitted electronically to the NCC, through Very
SmallApertureTerminal(VSAT)facilities.[16]Forthispurpose,personalcomputersshallbeallocated
for all cities and municipalities at the rate of one set for every one hundred seventyfive (175)
precincts[17]
III.ADepartmentofEducation(DepEd)Supervisorshallbedesignatedintheareawhowillbeassigned
ineachpollingcenterforthepurposeofgatheringfromallBoardofElectionInspectors(BEI)therein
theenvelopescontainingtheCopy3oftheElectionReturns(ER)fornationalpositionsandCopy2of
the ER for local positions, both intended for the COMELEC, which shall be used as basis for the
encodingandtransmissionofadvancedprecinctresults.[18]
The assailed resolution further provides that written notices of the date, time and place of the
electronic transmission of advanced precinct results shall be given not later than May 5, 2004 to
candidates running for local positions, and not later than May 7, 2004 to candidates running for
national positions, as well as to political parties fielding candidates, and parties,
organizations/coalitionsparticipatingunderthepartylistsystem.[19]
In relation to this, Section 13 of the assailed resolution provides that the encoding proceedings
were ministerial and the tabulations were advanced unofficial results. The entirety of Section 13,
reads:

Sec.13.RighttoobservetheETCproceedings.Everyregisteredpoliticalpartyorcoalitionofparties,accredited
politicalparty,sectoralparty/organizationorcoalitionthereofunderthepartylist,throughitsrepresentative,and
everycandidatefornationalpositionshastherighttoobserve/witnesstheencodingandelectronictransmission
oftheERswithintheauthorizedperimeter.

Provided,Thatcandidatesforthesangguniangpanlalawigan,sangguniangpanglungsodorsangguniangbayan
belongingtothesameslateorticketshallcollectivelybeentitledtoonlyonecommonobserverattheETC.

ThecitizensarmoftheCommission,andcivic,religious,professional,business,service,youthandothersimilar
organizationscollectively,withpriorauthorityoftheCommission,shalleachbeentitledtoone(1)observer.
SuchfactshallberecordedintheMinutes.

Theobservershallhavetherighttoobserve,takenoteofandmakeobservationsontheproceedingsoftheteam.
Observationsshallbeinwritingand,whensubmitted,shallbeattachedtotheMinutes.

Theencodingproceedingsbeingministerialinnature,andthetabulationsbeingadvancedunofficialresults,no
objectionsorprotestsshallbeallowedorentertainedbytheETC.

In keeping with the unofficial character of the electronically transmitted precinct results, the
assailedresolutionexpresslyprovidesthatnoprintoutsshallbereleasedattheETCandattheNCC.
[20]
Instead, consolidated and perprecinct results shall be made available via the Internet, text

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/163193.htm 4/23
6/18/2017 BrillantesJrvsConcepcion:163193:June15,2004:J.CallejoSr:EnBanc:Decision

messaging, and electronic billboards in designated locations. Interested parties may print the result
publishedintheCOMELECwebsite.[21]
When apprised of the said resolution, the National Citizens Movement for Free Elections
(NAMFREL),andtheheadsofthemajorpoliticalparties,namely,SenatorEdgardoJ.Angaraofthe
Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) and Chairman of the Koalisyon ng mga Nagkakaisang
Pilipino(KNP)ExecutiveCommittee,Dr.JaimeZ.GalvezTanoftheAksyonDemokratiko,FriscoSan
JuanoftheNationalistPeoplesCoalition(NPC),Gen.HonestoM.IsletaofBangonPilipinas,Senate
President Franklin Drilon of the Liberal Party, and Speaker Jose de Venecia of the LakasChristian
Muslim Democrats (CMD) and Norberto M. Gonzales of the Partido Demokratiko Sosyalista ng
Pilipinas,wrotetheCOMELEC,onMay3,2004detailingtheirconcernsabouttheassailedresolution:

ThisreferstoCOMELECResolution6712promulgatedon28April2004.

NAMFRELandpoliticalpartieshavethefollowingconcernsaboutResolution6712whicharoseduring
consultationoverthepastweek[:]

a)TheResolutiondisregardsRA8173,8436,and7166whichauthorizeonlythecitizensarmtouseanelection
returnforanunofficialcountotherunofficialcountsmaynotbebasedonanelectionreturnIndeed,itmaybe
fairlyinferredfromthelawthatexceptforthecopyofthecitizensarm,electionreturnsmayonlybeusedfor
canvassingorforreceivingdisputeresolutions.

b)TheCommissionscopy,thesecondorthirdcopyoftheelectionreturn,asthecasemaybe,hasalwaysbeen
intendedtobeanarchivedcopyanditsintegritypreserveduntilrequiredbytheCommissiontoresolveelection
disputes.OnlytheBoardofElectionInspectorsisauthorizedtohavebeenincontactwiththereturnbeforethe
Commissionunsealsit.

c)TheinstructioncontainedinResolution6712,tobreakthesealoftheenvelopecontainingcopiesNos.2and3
willintroduceabreakinthechainofcustodypriortoitsopeningbytheCommissiononElection[s].Inthe
processofprematurelybreakingthesealoftheBoardofElectionInspectors,theintegrityoftheCommissions
copyisbreached,therebyrenderingitvoidofanyprobativevalue.

Tous,itdoesappearthattheuseofelectionreturnsasprescribedinResolution6712departsfromthelettersand
spiritofthelaw,aswellaspreviouspractice.Moreimportantly,questionsoflegalitiesaside,theconductofan
advancedcountbytheCOMELECmayaffectthecredibilityoftheelectionsbecauseitwilldifferfromthe
resultsobtainedfromcanvassing.Needlesstosay,itdoesnothelpeitherthatResolution6712waspromulgated
onlyrecently,andperceivably,ontheeveoftheelections.

Inviewoftheforegoing,werespectfullyrequesttheCommissiontoreconsiderResolution6712which
authorizestheuseofelectionreturnsfortheconsolidationoftheelectionresultsfortheMay10,2004elections.
[22]

ThePresentPetition

OnMay4,2004,thepetitionatbarwasfiledinthisCourt.
JoseConcepcion,Jr.,JoseDeVenecia,EdgardoJ.Angara,Dr.JaimeZ.GalvezTan,FranklinM.
Drilon,FriscoSanJuan,NorbertoM.Gonzales,HonestoM.IsletaandJoseA.Bernas,filedwiththis
CourttheirMotiontoAdmitAttachedPetitioninIntervention.Intheirpetitioninintervention,movants
petitionersurgetheCourttodeclareasnullandvoidtheassailedresolutionandpermanentlyenjoin
the respondent COMELEC from implementing the same. The Court granted the motion of the
petitionersininterventionandadmittedtheirpetition.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/163193.htm 5/23
6/18/2017 BrillantesJrvsConcepcion:163193:June15,2004:J.CallejoSr:EnBanc:Decision

Inassailingthevalidityofthequestionedresolution,thepetitioneraversinhispetitionthatthereis
no provision under Rep. Act No. 8436 which authorizes the COMELEC to engage in the
biometrics/computerized system of validation of voters (Phase I) and a system of electronic
transmissionofelectionresults(PhaseIII).Evenassumingforthenoncethatallthethree(3)phases
aredulyauthorized,theymustcomplementeachotherastheyarenotdistinctandseparateprograms
but mere stages of one whole scheme. Consequently, considering the failed implementation of
PhasesIandII,thereisnobasisatallfortherespondentCOMELECtostillpushthroughandpursue
with Phase III. The petitioner essentially posits that the counting and consolidation of votes
contemplatedunderSection6ofRep.ActNo.8436referstotheofficialCOMELECcountunderthe
fully automated system and not any kind of unofficial count via electronic transmission of advanced
resultsasnowprovidedundertheassailedresolution.
The petitionersinintervention point to several constitutional infractions occasioned by the
assailedresolution.Theyadvancetheviewthattheassailedresolutioneffectivelypreemptsthesole
and exclusive authority of Congress under Article VII, Section 4 of the Constitution to canvass the
votesforPresidentandVicePresident.Further,astherehasbeennoappropriationbyCongressfor
therespondentCOMELECtoconductanunofficialelectronictransmissionofresultsoftheMay10,
2004elections,anyexpenditureforthesaidpurposecontravenesArticleVI,Section29(par.1)ofthe
Constitution.
On statutory grounds, the petitioner and petitionersinintervention contend that the assailed
resolutionencroachesupontheauthorityofNAMFREL,asthecitizensaccreditedarm,toconductthe
unofficialquickcountasprovidedunderpertinentelectionlaws.Itis,likewise,impugnedforviolating
Section52(i)oftheOmnibusElectionCode,relatingtotherequirementofnoticetothepoliticalparties
andcandidatesoftheadoptionoftechnologicalandelectronicdevicesduringtheelections.
For its part, the COMELEC preliminarily assails the jurisdiction of this Court to pass upon the
assailed resolutions validity claiming that it was promulgated in the exercise of the respondent
COMELECs executive or administrative power. It asserts that the present controversy involves a
politicalquestionhence,beyondtheambitofjudicialreview.It,likewise,impugnsthestandingofthe
petitionertofilethepresentpetition,ashehasnotallegedanyinjurywhichhewouldormaysufferas
aresultoftheimplementationoftheassailedresolution.
On the merits, the respondent COMELEC denies that the assailed resolution was promulgated
pursuant to Rep. Act No. 8436, and that it is the implementation of Phase III of its modernization
program.Rather,asitsbases,therespondentCOMELECinvokesthegeneralgranttoitofthepower
to enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of elections and to promulgate rules and
regulations to ensure free, orderly and honest elections by the Constitution, the Omnibus Election
Code, and Rep. Acts Nos. 6646 and 7166. The COMELEC avers that granting arguendo that the
assailedresolutionisrelatedtoorconnectedwithPhaseIIIofthemodernizationprogram,nospecific
lawisviolatedbyitsimplementation.ItpositsthatPhasesI,IIandIIIaremutuallyexclusiveschemes
such that, even if the first two phases have been scrapped, the latter phase may still proceed
independentlyofandseparatelyfromtheothers.Itfurtherarguesthatthereisstatutorybasisforitto
conduct an unofficial quick count. Among others, it invokes the general grant to it of the power to
ensurefree,orderly,honest,peacefulandcredibleelections.Finally,itclaimsthatithadcompliedwith
Section52(i)oftheOmnibusElectionCode,asthepoliticalpartiesandallthecandidatesofthe2004
electionsweresufficientlynotifiedoftheelectronictransmissionofadvancedelectionresults.
The COMELEC trivializes as purely speculative these constitutional concerns raised by the
petitionersinintervention and the Senate President. It maintains that what is contemplated in the
assailedresolutionisnotacanvassofthevotesbutmerelyconsolidationandtransmittalthereof.As
such, it cannot be made the basis for the proclamation of any winning candidate.Emphasizing that
the project is unofficial in nature, the COMELEC opines that it cannot, therefore, be considered as
preemptingorusurpingtheexclusivepowerofCongresstocanvassthevotesforPresidentandVice
President.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/163193.htm 6/23
6/18/2017 BrillantesJrvsConcepcion:163193:June15,2004:J.CallejoSr:EnBanc:Decision

TheIssues

AtthesaidhearingonMay8,2004,theCourtsetforththeissuesforresolutionasfollows:
1.Whetherthepetitionerandthepetitionersintervenorshavestandingtosue
2.Assumingthattheyhavestanding,whethertheissuestheyraisearepoliticalinnatureoverwhich
theCourthasnojurisdiction
3.Assumingtheissuesarenotpolitical,whetherResolutionNo.6712isvoid:
(a)forpreemptingthesoleandexclusiveauthorityofCongressunderArt.VII,Sec.4ofthe
1987 Constitution to canvass the votes for the election of President and Vice
President
(b)forviolatingArt.VI,Sec.29(par.1)ofthe1987Constitutionthatnomoneyshallbepaid
outofthetreasuryexceptinpursuanceofanappropriationmadebylaw
(c)for disregarding Rep. Acts Nos. 8173, 8436 and 7166 which authorize only the citizens
armtouseanelectionreturnforanunofficialcount
(d)forviolationofSec.52(i)oftheOmnibusElectionCode,requiringnotlessthanthirty(30)
daysnoticeoftheuseofnewtechnologicalandelectronicdevicesand,
(e)forlackofconstitutionalorstatutorybasisand,
4.WhethertheimplementationofResolutionNo.6712wouldcausetrending,confusionandchaos.

TheRulingoftheCourt

Theissues,asearlierdefined,shallnowberesolvedinseriatim:

ThePetitionersAndPetitionersIn
InterventionPossessTheLocus
StandiToMaintainThePresent
Action

Thegistofthequestionofstandingiswhetherapartyhas"allegedsuchapersonalstakeinthe
outcomeofthecontroversyastoassurethatconcreteadversenesswhichsharpensthepresentation
ofissuesuponwhichthecourtsolargelydependsforilluminationofdifficultconstitutionalquestions.
[23]
Since the implementation of the assailed resolution obviously involves the expenditure of funds,
the petitioner and the petitionersinintervention, as taxpayers, possess the requisite standing to
question its validity as they have sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of money
raised by taxation.[24] In essence, taxpayers are allowed to sue where there is a claim of illegal
disbursement of public funds, or that public money is being deflected to any improper purpose, or
where the petitioners seek to restrain the respondent from wasting public funds through the
enforcementofaninvalidorunconstitutionallaw.[25]
Mostofthepetitionersininterventionarealsorepresentativesofmajorpoliticalpartiesthathave
participatedintheMay10,2004elections.Ontheotherhand,petitionersininterventionConcepcion
and Bernas represent the National Citizens Movement for Free Elections (NAMFREL), which is the
citizens arm authorized to conduct an unofficial quick count during the said elections. They have
sufficient, direct and personal interest in the manner by which the respondent COMELEC would
conducttheelections,includingthecountingandcanvassingofthevotescasttherein.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/163193.htm 7/23
6/18/2017 BrillantesJrvsConcepcion:163193:June15,2004:J.CallejoSr:EnBanc:Decision

Moreover,thepetitionersininterventionDrilonandDeVeneciaare,respectively,Presidentofthe
Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives, the heads of Congress which is exclusively
authorizedbytheConstitutiontocanvassthevotesforPresidentandVicePresident.Theyhavethe
requisitestandingtopreventtheusurpationoftheconstitutionalprerogativeofCongress.

TheIssueRaisedByThe
PetitionIsJusticiable

ArticleVIII,Section1ofthe1987Constitutionexpandstheconceptofjudicialreviewbyproviding
that:

SEC.1.ThejudicialpowershallbevestedinoneSupremeCourtandinsuchlowercourtsasmaybeestablished
bylaw.

Judicialpowerincludesthedutyofthecourtsofjusticetosettleactualcontroversiesinvolvingrightswhichare
legallydemandableandenforceable,andtodeterminewhetherornottherehasbeengraveabuseofdiscretion
amountingtolackorexcessofjurisdictiononthepartofanybranchorinstrumentalityoftheGovernment.

TheCourtdoesnotagreewiththepostureoftherespondentCOMELECthattheissueinvolvedin
thepresentpetitionisapoliticalquestionbeyondthejurisdictionofthisCourttoreview.Astheleading
caseofTaadavs.Cuenco[26]putit,politicalquestionsareconcernedwithissuesdependentuponthe
wisdom,notlegalityofaparticularmeasure.
The issue raised in the present petition does not merely concern the wisdom of the assailed
resolutionbutfocusesonitsallegeddisregardforapplicablestatutoryandconstitutionalprovisions.In
other words, that the petitioner and the petitionersinintervention are questioning the legality of the
respondentCOMELECsadministrativeissuancewillnotprecludethisCourtfromexercisingitspower
ofjudicialreviewtodeterminewhetherornottherewasgraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtolack
or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the respondent COMELEC in issuing Resolution No. 6712.
Indeed, administrative issuances must not override, supplant or modify the law, but must remain
consistentwiththelawtheyintendtocarryout.[27]Whenthegrantofpowerisqualified,conditionalor
subjecttolimitations,theissueofwhethertheprescribedqualificationsorconditionshavebeenmet
orthelimitationsrespected,isjusticiabletheproblembeingoneoflegalityorvalidity,notitswisdom.
[28]
In the present petition, the Court must pass upon the petitioners contention that Resolution No.
6712doesnothaveadequatestatutoryorconstitutionalbasis.
Althoughnotraisedduringtheoralarguments,anotherproceduralissuethathastobeaddressed
iswhetherthesubstantiveissueshadbeenrenderedmootandacademic.Indeed,theMay10,2004
elections have come and gone. Except for the President and VicePresident, the newly elected
nationalandlocalofficialshavebeenproclaimed.Nonetheless,theCourtfindsitnecessarytoresolve
the merits of the substantive issues for future guidance of both the bench and bar.[29] Further, it is
settled rule that courts will decide a question otherwise moot and academic if it is capable of
repetition,yetevadingreview.[30]

TheRespondentCOMELEC
CommittedGraveAbuseOf
DiscretionAmountingToLackOr
ExcessOfJurisdictionInIssuing
ResolutionNo.6712

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/163193.htm 8/23
6/18/2017 BrillantesJrvsConcepcion:163193:June15,2004:J.CallejoSr:EnBanc:Decision

Thepreliminaryissueshavingbeenthusresolved,theCourtshallproceedtodeterminewhether
the respondent COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdictioninpromulgatingtheassailedresolution.
TheCourtrulesintheaffirmative.
An administrative body or tribunal acts without jurisdiction if it does not have the legal power to
determinethematterbeforeitthereisexcessofjurisdictionwheretherespondent,beingclothedwith
the power to determine the matter, oversteps its authority as determined by law.[31] There is grave
abuse of discretion justifying the issuance of the writ of certiorari when there is a capricious and
whimsicalexerciseofhisjudgmentasisequivalenttolackofjurisdiction.[32]
First.Theassailedresolutionusurps,undertheguiseofanunofficialtabulationofelectionresults
basedonacopyoftheelectionreturns,thesoleandexclusiveauthorityofCongresstocanvassthe
votes for the election of President and VicePresident. Article VII, Section 4 of the Constitution
providesinpart:

ThereturnsofeveryelectionforPresidentandVicePresidentdulycertifiedbytheboardofcanvassersofeach
provinceorcity,shallbetransmittedtotheCongress,directedtothePresidentoftheSenate.Uponreceiptofthe
certificatesofcanvass,thePresidentoftheSenateshall,notlaterthanthirtydaysafterthedayoftheelection,
openallthecertificatesinthepresenceoftheSenateandtheHouseofRepresentativesinjointpublicsession,
andtheCongress,upondeterminationoftheauthenticityanddueexecutionthereofinthemannerprovidedby
law,canvassthevotes.

AsearlyasJanuary28,2004,SenatePresidentFranklinM.DrilonalreadyconveyedtoChairman
Benjamin S. Abalos, Sr. his deepseated concern that the respondent COMELEC could not and
shouldnotconductanyquickcountofthevotescastforthepositionsofPresidentandVicePresident.
In his Letter dated February 2, 2004[33] addressed to Chairman Abalos, Senate President Drilon
reiteratedhispositionemphasizingthatanyquickcounttobeconductedbytheCommissiononsaid
positionswouldineffectconstituteacanvassofthevotesofthePresidentandVicePresident,which
not only would be preemptive of the authority of Congress, but would also be lacking of any
constitutionalauthority.[34]
Nonetheless, in disregard of the valid objection of the Senate President, the COMELEC
proceeded to promulgate the assailed resolution. Such resolution directly infringes the authority of
Congress,consideringthatSection4thereofallowstheuseofthethirdcopyoftheElectionReturns
(ERs) for the positions of President, VicePresident, Senators and Members of the House of
Representatives, intended for the COMELEC, as basis for the encoding and transmission of
advanced precinct results, and in the process, canvass the votes for the President and Vice
President,aheadofthecanvassingofthesamevotesbyCongress.
Parenthetically,eventheprovisionofRep.ActNo.8436confirmstheconstitutionalundertakingof
CongressasthesolebodytaskedtocanvassthevotesforthePresidentandVicePresident.Section
24thereofprovides:

SEC.24.CongressastheNationalBoardofCanvassersforPresidentandVicePresident.TheSenateandthe
HouseofRepresentatives,injointpublicsession,shallcomposethenationalboardofcanvassersforpresident
andvicepresident.Thereturnsofeveryelectionforpresidentandvicepresidentdulycertifiedbytheboardof
canvassersofeachprovinceorcity,shallbetransmittedtotheCongress,directedtothepresidentoftheSenate.
Uponreceiptofthecertificatesofcanvass,thepresidentoftheSenateshall,notlaterthanthirty(30)daysafter
thedayoftheelection,openallthecertificatesinthepresenceoftheSenateandtheHouseofRepresentativesin
jointpublicsession,andtheCongressupondeterminationoftheauthenticityandthedueexecutionthereofin
themannerprovidedbylaw,canvassalltheresultsforpresidentandvicepresidentbyconsolidatingtheresults
containedinthedatastoragedevicessubmittedbythedistrict,provincialandcityboardsofcanvassersand
thereafter,proclaimthewinningcandidatesforpresidentandvicepresident.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/163193.htm 9/23
6/18/2017 BrillantesJrvsConcepcion:163193:June15,2004:J.CallejoSr:EnBanc:Decision

ThecontentionoftheCOMELECthatitstabulationofvotesisnotprohibitedbytheConstitution
and Rep. Act No. 8436 as such tabulation is unofficial, is puerile and totally unacceptable. If the
COMELECisproscribedfromconductinganofficialcanvassofthevotescastforthePresidentand
VicePresident,theCOMELECis,withmorereason,prohibitedfrommakinganunofficialcanvassof
saidvotes.
The COMELEC realized its folly and the merits of the objection of the Senate President on the
constitutionalityoftheresolutionthatitdecidednottoconductanunofficialquickcountoftheresults
of the elections for President and VicePresident. Commissioner Sadain so declared during the
hearing:
JUSTICEPUNO:
Thewordyouaresayingthatwithin36hoursafterelection,moreorless,youwillbeabletotellthe
peopleonthebasisofyourquickcount,whowontheelection,isthatit?
COMM.SADAIN:
Well, its not exactly like that, Your Honor. Because the fact of winning the election would really
dependonthecanvassedresults,butprobably,itwouldalreadygiveacertaindegreeofcomfortto
certainpoliticianstopeoplerather,astowhoareleadingintheelections,asfarasSenatordown
areconcerned,butnottoPresidentandVicePresident.
JUSTICEPUNO:
So as far as the Senatorial candidates involved are concerned, but you dont give this assurance
withrespecttothePresidentialandVicePresidentialelectionswhicharemoreimportant?
COMM.SADAIN:
IndeferencetotherequestoftheSenatePresidentandtheHouseSpeaker,YourHonor.According
tothem,theywillbetheonescanvassingandproclaimingthewinner,soitistheirviewthatwewill
bepreemptingtheircanvassingworkandtheproclamationofthewinnersandwegaveintotheir
request.[35]
JUSTICECALLEJO,[SR.]:
Perhapswhatyouaresayingisthatthesystemwillminimizedagdagbawasbutnottotallyeradicate
dagdagbawas?
COMM.SADAIN:
Yes,YourHonor.
JUSTICECALLEJO,[SR.]:
Now,IheardeitherAtty.BernasorAtty.Brillantessay(sic)thattherewasaconferencebetween
theSpeakerandtheSenatePresidentandtheChairmanduringwhichtheSenatePresidentand
the Speaker voice[d] their objections to the electronic transmission results system, can you share
withustheobjectionsofthetwogentlemen?
COMM.SADAIN:
ThesewasrelayedtousYourHonorandtheirobjectionorrequestratherwasforustorefrainfrom
consolidating and publishing the results for presidential and vicepresidential candidates which we
havealreadygrantedYourHonors.So,thereisgoingtobenoconsolidationandnopublicationof
the
COMM.SADAIN:
ReasonbehindbeingthatitisactuallyCongressthatcanvassthattheofficialcanvassforthisand
proclaimsthewinner.[36]
Second. The assailed COMELEC resolution contravenes the constitutional provision that no
moneyshallbepaidoutofthetreasuryexceptinpursuanceofanappropriationmadebylaw.[37]

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/163193.htm 10/23
6/18/2017 BrillantesJrvsConcepcion:163193:June15,2004:J.CallejoSr:EnBanc:Decision

Byitsveryterms,theelectronictransmissionandtabulationoftheelectionresultsprojectedunder
Resolution No. 6712 is unofficial in character, meaning not emanating from or sanctioned or
acknowledged by the government or government body.[38] Any disbursement of public funds to
implementthisprojectiscontrarytotheprovisionsoftheConstitutionandRep.ActNo.9206,whichis
the2003GeneralAppropriationsAct.TheuseoftheCOMELECofitsfundsappropriatedfortheAES
for the unofficial quick count project may even be considered as a felony under Article 217 of the
RevisedPenalCode,asamended.[39]
Irrefragably,theimplementationoftheassailedresolutionwouldentail,induecourse,thehiringof
additional manpower, technical services and acquisition of equipment, including computers and
software, among others.According to the COMELEC, it needed P55,000,000 to operationalize the
project, including the encoding process.[40] Hence, it would necessarily involve the disbursement of
publicfundsforwhichtheremustbethecorrespondingappropriation.
The COMELEC posited during the hearing that the 2003 General Appropriations Act has
appropriatedtheamountneededforitsunofficialtabulation.We quotethetranscript of stenographic
notestakenduringthehearing:
JUSTICEVITUG:
Andyoumentionedearliersomethingabout55millionnotbeingpaidasyet?
COMM.SADAIN:
Thisisanextraamountthatwewillbeneedingtooperationalize.
JUSTICEVITUG:
Andthishasnotyetbeendone?
COMM.SADAIN:
Ithasnotyetbeendone,YourHonor.
JUSTICEVITUG:
WouldyouconsiderthefundsthatwereauthorizedbyyouundertheGeneralAppropriationsActas
capableofbeingusedforthispurpose?
COMM.SADAIN:
Yes,thatsourposition,YourHonor.[41]
But then the COMELEC, through Commissioner Sadain, admitted during the said hearing that
although it had already approved the assailed resolution, it was still looking for the P55,000,000
neededtooperationalizetheproject:
JUSTICECARPIO:
Justaclarification.Youstatedthatyousignedalreadythemaincontractfor300millionbutyouhave
notsignedthe55millionsupplementalcontractfortheencoding?
COMM.SADAIN:
Yes,YourHonor.
JUSTICECARPIO:
Becauseyoustilldonthavethemoneyforthat?
COMM.SADAIN:
Well,yes,wearetryingtodeterminewherewecansecurethemoney.
JUSTICECARPIO:
Now,theencodingiscrucialwithouttheencoding,theentireprojectcollapses?

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/163193.htm 11/23
6/18/2017 BrillantesJrvsConcepcion:163193:June15,2004:J.CallejoSr:EnBanc:Decision

COMM.SADAIN:
Yes.[42]
Inexplicably, Commissioner Sadain contradicted himself when he said that its Financial
Departmenthadalreadyfoundthemoney,butthatproperdocumentationwasforthcoming:
JUSTICECARPIO:
Justaclarification.Youstatedthatyousignedalreadythemaincontractfor300millionbutyouhave
notsignedthe55millionsupplementalcontractfortheencoding?
COMM.SADAIN:
Yes,YourHonor.
JUSTICECARPIO:
Becauseyoustilldonthavethemoneyforthat?
COMM.SADAIN:
Well,yes,wearetryingtodeterminewherewecansecurethemoney.
JUSTICECARPIO:
Now,theencodingiscrucialwithouttheencoding,theentireprojectcollapses?
COMM.SADAIN:
Yes.
JUSTICECARPIO:
So, you have two (2) days to look for the 55 million, you have signed the contract on the main
contractandifyoudontgetthat55million,that300millionmaincontractgoestowaste,because
youcannotencode?
COMM.SADAIN:
Its just a matter of proper documentation, Your Honor, because I was informed by our Finance
Departmentthatthemoneyisthere.
JUSTICECARPIO:
So,youhavefoundthemoneyalready?
COMM.SADAIN:

Yes,YourHonor.[43]
Earlier, during the April 27, 2004 meeting of the COMELEC En Banc, the Commissioners
expressed their serious concerns about the lack of funds for the project, the propriety of using the
fundsforPhaseIIIofitsmodernization,andthepossibilityofrealigningfundstofinancetheproject:
Comm.Tuason:
MayIjustrequestallthepartieswhoareinherenawhateverissaidhereshouldbeconfinedwithin
thefourwallsofthisroomandtheminutessothatwalangmasyadongproblema.
Comm.Borra:
Saakinlang,werespecteachothersopinion.Iwillnotmakeanyobservations.Iwilljustsubmitmy
ownmemotobeincorporatedintheminutes.
Comm.Tuason:
CommissionerBorrawillsubmitacommenttobeattachedtotheminutesbutnotontheresolution.
Akonaman,Iwilljustmakeitonrecordmypreviousreservation.Idonothaveanyobjectionasto
thePhaseIIImodernizationprojectitself.Mymainconcernisthebudget.Iwouldliketomakeiton
recordthatthebudgetforPhaseIIIshouldbetakenfromthemodernizationprogramfundbecause
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/163193.htm 12/23
6/18/2017 BrillantesJrvsConcepcion:163193:June15,2004:J.CallejoSr:EnBanc:Decision

PhaseIIIisdefinitelypartofthemodernizationproject.Otherfunds,forinstanceotherfundstobe
usedfornationalelectionsmaynotbeproperforrealignment.ThatiswhyIamsayingthatthefunds
tobeusedforPhaseIIIshouldproperlycomefromthemodernization.Theotherreservationisthat
theElectionOfficersarenowplaguedwithsomuchworksuchasthepreparationofthelistofvoters
andtheirconcernintheirrespectiveareas.Theyweresayingtome,speciallysoinmyownregion,
that to burden them with another training at this point in time will make them loose (sic) focus on
whattheyarereallydoingforthenationalelectionsandwhattheyaresayingisthattheyshouldnot
besubjectedtoanytraininganymore.Andtheyalsosaidthatcomecanvassingtime,theirpriority
wouldbetocanvassfirstbeforetheypreparethecertificateofvotestobefedtotheencoders[tobe
fed to the encoders] for electronic transmission.I share the sentiments of our people in the field.
Thatisalsooneofmyreservations.Thankyou.
Comm.Garcillano:
Ialsohavemyobservationsregardingthefinancialrestraintthatwearefacingifthemoneythatis
goingtobeusedforthisistakenfromthePhaseII,Idontthinkthereismoneyleft.
Comm.Borra:
ThereisnomoremoneyinPhaseIIbecausethebudgetforPhaseIIis1.3Billion.Theawardon
thecontractforPhaseIIprojectis1.248billion.Sotheremaininghasbeenallocatedforadditional
expensesforthetechnicalworkinggroupandstaffforPhaseII.
Comm.Garcillano:
I also have one problem.We have to have additional people to man this which I think is already
beingtakencaredof.Thirdis,Iknowthatthiswilldisruptthecanvassingthatisgoingtobehandled
byourEOandElectionAssistant.Idonotknowifitisgiventosomebody(inaudible)
Comm.Tuason:
Thoseareyourreservations.
Comm.Barcelona:
As far as I am concerned, I also have my reservations because I have the same experience as
Commissioner Tuason when I went to Region IX and Caraga. Our EOs and PES expressed
apprehensionovertheadditionaltrainingperiodthattheymayhavetoundergoalthough,theysay,
that if that is an order they will comply but it will be additional burden on them. I also share the
concern of Commissioner Tuason with regard to the budget that should be taken from the
modernizationbudget.
Comm.Borra:
Fortheminutes,mymemoisalreadyprepared.Iwillsubmititindetail.Onthreecountsnamanyan
ehlegal,secondistechnical/operationalandthirdisfinancial.
Comm.Sadain:
Ako naman, for my part as the CIC for Phase III, we were left with no choice but to implement
PhaseIIIinasmuchasexpenseshasalreadybeenincurredinPhaseIIItothetuneofalmost100%
atthetimewhenthePhaseIIcontractwasnullified.SoifwestoptheimplementationofPhaseIII
just because Phase II was nullified, which means that there would be no consolidation and
accountingconsolidationforthemachines,thenitwouldbeagain300millionpesosdownthedrain.
Necessarily there would be additional expense but we see this as a consequence of the loss of
PhaseII.IsharetheviewofComm.Tuasonthatasmuchaspossiblethisshouldbetakenfromthe
modernization fund as much as this is properly modernization concern. However, I would like to
openmyselftothepossibilitynaincasewalatalaga,wemightexplorethepossibilityofrealigning
fundsalthoughthatmightnot(inaudible).Nowwithregardsthelegality,IthinkwhatCommissioner
Borra has derived his opinion but I would like to think the legality issue must have been settled
already as early as when we approved the modernization program involving all three phases
althoughwealsograntthebenefitoftheargumentforCommissionerBorraifhethinksthatthereis
goingtobealegalgapforthelossofPhaseII.WithregardstheconcernwiththeElectionOfficers,I
also share the same concern. In fact, on this matter alone, we try to make the GI as simple as
possiblesothatwhateverburdenwewillbegivingtotheEOsandEAswillbeminimized.Asinfact,
wewillberecommendingthattheEOswillnolongerbebotheredtoattendthetraining.Theycan

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/163193.htm 13/23
6/18/2017 BrillantesJrvsConcepcion:163193:June15,2004:J.CallejoSr:EnBanc:Decision

probablyjustsitinforthefirsthourandthentheycangoonwiththeirnormalroutineandthenleave
the encoders as well as the reception officers to attend the training because there (sic) are the
peoplewhowillreallybedoingtheministerial,almostmechanical,workofencodingandtransmitting
theelectionresults.Yunlang.[44]
WehavereviewedRep.ActNo.9206,theGeneralAppropriationsAct,whichtookeffectonApril
23, 2003 and find no appropriation for the project of the COMELEC for electronic transmission of
unofficialelectionresults.WhatisappropriatedthereinistheamountofP225,000,000 of the capital
outlayforthemodernizationoftheelectoralsystem.
B.PROJECTS Maintenance & CapitalOutlays Total
Other Operating
Expenses
I.LocallyFundedProjects
a. For the Modernization of
ElectoralSystem 225,000,000 225,000,000
b. FY 2003 Preparatory Activities
forNationalElections 250,000,000 250,000,000
c.UpgradingofVotersDatabase 125,000,000 125,000,000
d.ConductofSpecialElectionto
fill the vacancy in the Third
District 6,500,000 6,500,000
ofCavite

e.ImplementationofAbsentee
VotingActof2003(RA9189) 300,000,000 300,000,000
========== ========= ==========

SubTotal, LocallyFunded 681,500,000 225,000,000 300,000,000[45]

Projects

Underparagraph3ofthespecialprovisionsofRep.ActNo.9206,theamountofP225,000,000
shallbeusedprimarilyfortheestablishmentoftheAESprescribedunderRep.ActNo.8436,viz:

3.ModernizationofElectoralSystem.TheappropriationshereinauthorizedfortheModernizationofthe
ElectoralSystemintheamountofTwoHundredTwentyFiveMillionPesos(P225,000,000.00)shallbeused
primarilyfortheestablishmentoftheautomatedelectionsystem,prescribedunderRepublicActNo.8436,
particularlyfortheprocessofvoting,countingofvotesandcanvassing/consolidationofresultsofthenational
andlocalelections.[46]

Section52ofRep.ActNo.9206proscribesanychangeormodificationintheexpenditureitems
authorizedthereunder.Thus:

Sec.52.ModificationofExpenditureComponents.UnlessspecificallyauthorizedinthisAct,nochangeor
modificationshallbemadeintheexpenditureitemsinthisActandotherappropriationslawsunlessincasesof
augmentationfromsavingsinappropriationsasauthorizedunderSection25(5),ArticleVIofthe1987
PhilippineConstitution.

Neither can the money needed for the project be taken from the COMELECs savings, if any,
becauseitwouldbeviolativeofArticleVI,Section25(5)[47]ofthe1987Constitution.
Thepowertoaugmentfromsavingsliesdormantuntilauthorizedbylaw.[48]Inthiscase,nolaw
has, thus, far been enacted authorizing the respondent COMELEC to transfer savings from another
iteminitsappropriation,ifthereareany,tofundtheassailedresolution.NolessthantheSecretaryof
the Senate certified that there is no law appropriating any amount for an unofficial count and
tabulationofthevotescastduringtheMay10,2004elections:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/163193.htm 14/23
6/18/2017 BrillantesJrvsConcepcion:163193:June15,2004:J.CallejoSr:EnBanc:Decision

CERTIFICATION

IherebycertifythatperrecordsoftheSenate,Congresshasnotlegislatedanyappropriationintendedtodefray
thecostofanunofficialcount,tabulationorconsolidationofthevotescastduringtheMay10,2004elections.

May11,2004.PasayCity,Philippines.

WhatisworrisomeisthatdespitetheconcernsoftheCommissionersduringitsEnBancmeeting
on April 27, 2004, the COMELEC nevertheless approved the assailed resolution the very next day.
TheCOMELEChadnotexecutedanysupplementalcontractfortheimplementationoftheprojectwith
PMSI.Worse,evenintheabsenceofacertificationofavailabilityoffundsfortheproject,itapproved
theassailedresolution.
Third.Theassailedresolutiondisregardsexistinglawswhichauthorizesolelythedulyaccredited
citizens arm to conduct the unofficial counting of votes.Under Section 27 of Rep. Act No. 7166, as
amended by Rep. Act No. 8173,[49] and reiterated in Section 18 of Rep. Act No. 8436,[50] the
accredited citizens arm in this case, NAMFREL is exclusively authorized to use a copy of the
election returns in the conduct of an unofficial counting of the votes, whether for the national or the
localelections.Nootherentity,includingtherespondentCOMELECitself,isauthorizedtouseacopy
oftheelectionreturnsforpurposesofconductinganunofficialcount.Inaddition,thesecondorthird
copy of the election returns, while required to be delivered to the COMELEC under the
aforementionedlaws,arenotintendedforundertakinganunofficialcount.TheaforesaidCOMELEC
copiesarearchivedandunsealedonlywhenneededbytherespondentCOMELECtoverifyelection
resultsinconnectionwithresolvingelectiondisputesthatmaybeimminent.However,incontravention
of the law, the assailed Resolution authorizes the socalled Reception Officers (RO), to open the
second or third copy intended for the respondent COMELEC as basis for the encoding and
transmissionofadvancedunofficialprecinctresults.Thisnotonlyviolatestheexclusiveprerogativeof
NAMFRELtoconductanunofficialcount,butalsotaintstheintegrityoftheenvelopescontainingthe
electionreturns,aswellasthereturnsthemselves,bycreatingagapinitschainofcustodyfromthe
BoardofElectionInspectorstotheCOMELEC.
Fourth. Section 52(i) of the Omnibus Election Code, which is cited by the COMELEC as the
statutory basis for the assailed resolution, does not cover the use of the latest technological and
election devices for unofficial tabulations of votes. Moreover, the COMELEC failed to notify the
authorized representatives of accredited political parties and all candidates in areas affected by the
useoradoptionoftechnologicalandelectronicdevicesnotlessthanthirtydayspriortotheeffectivity
oftheuseofsuchdevices.Section52(i)reads:

SEC.52.PowersandfunctionsoftheCommissiononElections.Inadditiontothepowersandfunctions
conferreduponitbytheConstitution,theCommissionshallhaveexclusivechargeoftheenforcementand
administrationofalllawsrelativetotheconductofelectionsforthepurposeofensuringfree,orderlyandhonest
elections,andshall:

(i)Prescribetheuseoradoptionofthelatesttechnologicalandelectronicdevices,takingintoaccountthe
situationprevailingintheareaandthefundsavailableforthepurpose:Provided,ThattheCommissionshall
notifytheauthorizedrepresentativesofaccreditedpoliticalpartiesandcandidatesinareasaffectedbytheuseor
adoptionoftechnologicalandelectronicdevicesnotlessthanthirtydayspriortotheeffectivityoftheuseof
suchdevices.

Fromthecleartermsoftheaboveprovision,beforetheCOMELECmayresorttoandadoptthe
latesttechnologicalandelectronicdevicesforelectoralpurposes,itmustactinaccordancewiththe
followingconditions:
(a)Takeintoaccountthesituationprevailingintheareaandthefundsavailableforthepurpose
and,

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/163193.htm 15/23
6/18/2017 BrillantesJrvsConcepcion:163193:June15,2004:J.CallejoSr:EnBanc:Decision

(b) Notify the authorized representatives of accredited political parties and candidates in areas
affectedbytheuseoradoptionoftechnologicalandelectronicdevicesnotlessthanthirtydaysprior
totheeffectivityoftheuseofsuchdevices.
It is quite obvious that the purpose of this provision is to accord to all political parties and all
candidatestheopportunitytoobjecttotheeffectivenessoftheproposedtechnologyanddevices,and,
if they are so minded not to object, to allow them ample time to field their own trusted personnel
especially in far flung areas and to take other necessary measures to ensure the reliability of the
proposedelectoraltechnologyordevice.
Asearlierpointedout,theassailedresolutionwasissuedbytheCOMELECdespitemostofthe
Commissioners apprehensions regarding the legal, operational and financial impediments thereto.
Moresignificantly,sinceResolutionNo.6712wasmadeeffectiveimmediatelyadayafteritsissuance
on April 28, 2004, the respondent COMELEC could not have possibly complied with the thirtyday
notice requirement provided under Section 52(i) of the Omnibus Election Code. This indubitably
violatestheconstitutionalrighttodueprocessofthepoliticalpartiesandcandidates.TheOfficeofthe
Solicitor General (OSG) concedes this point, as it opines that the authorized representatives of
accreditedpoliticalpartiesandcandidatesshouldhavebeennotifiedoftheadoptionoftheelectronic
transmission of election returns nationwide at the latest on April 7, 2004, April 8 and 9 being Holy
ThursdayandGoodFriday,pursuanttoSection52(i)oftheOmnibusElectionCode.[51]Furthermore,
during the hearing on May 18, 2004, Commissioner Sadain, who appeared for the COMELEC,
unabashedlyadmittedthatitfailedtonotifyallthecandidatesforthe2004elections,asmandatedby
law:
JUSTICECARPIO:
You stated that you have notified in writing all the political parties and candidates as required in
Section52(i)?
COMM.SADAIN:
Yes,YourHonor.
JUSTICECARPIO:
Now,howmanycandidatesaretherenationwidenow?
COMM.SADAIN:
ImustadmityouHonorwewerenotabletonotifythecandidatesbutwenotifiedthepoliticians.
JUSTICECARPIO:
Yes,butwhatdoesthelawstate?Readthelawplease.
COMM.SADAIN:
Yes,YourHonor.Iunderstandthatitincludescandidates.
JUSTICECARPIO:
Andtherearehowmanycandidatesnationwiderunninginthiselection?
COMM.SADAIN:
Hundredsofthousands,YourHonor.
JUSTICECARPIO:
Hundredsofthousands,soyoumeanyoujustnotifiedthepoliticalpartiesnotthecandidates?
COMM.SADAIN:
Yes,YourHonor.
JUSTICECARPIO:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/163193.htm 16/23
6/18/2017 BrillantesJrvsConcepcion:163193:June15,2004:J.CallejoSr:EnBanc:Decision

Andyouthinkthatissubstantialcompliance,youwouldnotifyhowmanypoliticalpartiesasagainst
hundredsofthousandsofcandidates?
COMM.SADAIN:
Yes,YourHonor,wenotifiedthemajorpoliticalparties,YourHonor.
JUSTICECARPIO:
Onlythemajorpoliticalparties?
COMM.SADAIN:
Includingpartylist?
JUSTICECARPIO:
Butnotthecandidates,individualcandidates?
COMM.SADAIN:
Wewerenotabletodothat,YourHonor,Imustadmit.
JUSTICECARPIO:
So,youdidnotnotifyhundredsofthousandsofcandidates?
COMM.SADAIN:
No,YourHonors.[52]
The respondent COMELEC has, likewise, failed to submit any resolution or document to prove
thatithadnotifiedallpoliticalpartiesoftheintendedadoptionofResolutionNo.6712,incompliance
withSection52(i)oftheOmnibusElectionCode.Thisnotwithstandingthefactthatevenlongbefore
theissuanceoftheassailedresolution,ithadadmittedlyenteredintoacontractonApril15,2003[53]
and acquired facilities pertaining to the implementation of the electronic transmission and official
tabulationofelectionresults.Ascorrectlypointedoutbythepetitionersinintervention,theinvitations
dated January 15, 2004 regarding the January 20, 2004 COMELEC Conference with the political
parties on election security measures did not mention electronic transmission of advanced results,
much less the formal adoption of the purpose of the conference. Such notices merely invited the
addressee thereof or its/his authorized representative to a conference where the COMELEC would
showasampleoftheofficialballottobeusedintheelections,discussvarioussecuritymeasuresthat
COMELEC had put in place, and solicit suggestions to improve the administration of the polls.[54]
Further, the invitations purportedly sent out to the political parties regarding the April 6, 2004 Field
TestoftheElectronicTransmission,ConsolidationandDisseminationSystemtobeconductedbythe
COMELEC appear to have been sent out in the late afternoon of April 5, 2004, after office hours.
There is no showing that all the political parties attended the Field Test, or received the invitations.
Moreimportantly,thesaidinvitationsdidnotcontainaformalnoticeoftheadoptionofatechnology,
asrequiredbySection52(i)oftheOmnibusElectionCode.[55]
Fifth. The assailed resolution has no constitutional and statutory basis. That respondent
COMELECisthesolebodytaskedtoenforceandadministeralllawsandregulationsrelativetothe
conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall[56] and to ensure free, orderly,
honest,peacefulandcredibleelections[57]isbeyondcavil.Thatitpossessesthepowertopromulgate
rulesandregulationsintheperformanceofitsconstitutionaldutiesis,likewise,undisputed.However,
thedutiesoftheCOMELECundertheConstitution,Rep.ActNo.7166,andotherelectionlawsare
carriedout,atalltimes, in its official capacity. There is no constitutional and statutory basis for the
respondent COMELEC to undertake a separate and an unofficial tabulation of results, whether
manually or electronically. Indeed, by conducting such unofficial tabulation of the results of the
election,theCOMELECdescendstothelevelofaprivateorganization,spendingpublicfundsforthe
purpose.Besides,itisabsurdfortheCOMELECtoconducttwokindsofelectoralcountsaslowbut
officialcount,andanallegedquickerbutunofficialcount,theresultsofeachmaysubstantiallydiffer.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/163193.htm 17/23
6/18/2017 BrillantesJrvsConcepcion:163193:June15,2004:J.CallejoSr:EnBanc:Decision

Clearly,theassailedresolutionisanimplementationofPhaseIIIofthemodernizationprogramof
theCOMELECunderRep.ActNo.8436.Section2oftheassailedresolutionexpresslyreferstothe
PhaseIIIModernizationProjectoftheCOMELEC.SincethisCourthasalreadyscrappedthecontract
forPhaseIIoftheAES,theCOMELECcannotasyetimplementthePhaseIIIoftheprogram.Thisis
soprovidedinSection6ofRep.ActNo.8436.

SEC.6.AuthoritytoUseanAutomatedElectionSystem.Tocarryouttheabovestatedpolicy,theCommission
onElections,hereinreferredtoastheCommission,isherebyauthorizedtouseanautomatedelectionsystem,
hereinreferredtoastheSystem,fortheprocessofvoting,countingofvotesandcanvassing/consolidationof
resultsofthenationalandlocalelections:Provided,however,ThatfortheMay11,1998elections,theSystem
shallbeapplicableinallareaswithinthecountryonlyforthepositionsofpresident,vicepresident,senatorsand
parties,organizationsorcoalitionsparticipatingunderthepartylistsystem.

ToachievethepurposeofthisAct,theCommissionisauthorizedtoprocurebypurchase,leaseorotherwise,any
supplies,equipment,materialsandservicesneededfortheholdingoftheelectionsbyanexpeditedprocessof
publicbiddingofvendors,suppliersorlessors:Provided,Thattheaccreditedpoliticalpartiesaredulynotifiedof
andallowedtoobservebutnottoparticipateinthebidding.Ifinspiteofitsdiligenteffortstoimplementthis
mandateintheexerciseofthisauthority,itbecomesevidentbyFebruary9,1998thattheCommissioncannot
fullyimplementtheautomatedelectionsystemfornationalpositionsintheMay11,1998elections,theelections
forbothnationalandlocalpositionsshallbedonemanuallyexceptintheAutonomousRegioninMuslim
Mindanao(ARMM)wheretheautomatedelectionsystemshallbeusedforallpositions.

TheAESprovidedinRep.ActNo.8436constitutestheentireprocessofvoting,countingofvotes
andcanvassing/consolidationofresultsofthenationalandlocalelectionscorrespondingtothePhase
I, Phase II and Phase III of the AES of the COMELEC. The three phases cannot be effected
independentlyofeachother.TheimplementationofPhaseIIoftheAESisaconditionsinequanonto
the implementation of Phase III. The nullification by this Court of the contract for Phase II of the
Systemeffectivelyputonhold,atleastfortheMay10,2004elections,theimplementationofPhaseIII
oftheAES.
Sixth.Ascorrectlyobservedbythepetitioner,thereisagreatpossibilitythattheunofficialresults
reflected in the electronic transmission under the supervision and control of the COMELEC would
significantly vary from the results reflected in the COMELEC official count. The latter follows the
procedureprescribedbytheOmnibusElectionCode,whichismarkedlydifferentfromtheprocedure
envisionedintheassailedresolution.
Under the Omnibus Election Code, after the votes are cast and the polls closed, the Board of
ElectionInspectors(BEI)foreachprecinctisenjoinedtopubliclycountthevotesandrecordthesame
simultaneouslyonthetallyboardsandontwosetsofERs.EachsetoftheERispreparedineight(8)
copies. After the ERs are accomplished, they are forwarded to the Municipal Board of Canvassers
(MBC),whichwouldcanvassalltheERsandproclaimtheelectedmunicipalofficials.Alltheresultsin
the ERs are transposed to the statements of votes (SOVs) by precinct. These SOVs are then
transferredtothecertificatesofcanvass(COCs)whichare,inturn,broughttotheProvincialBoardof
Canvassers(PBC).Subsequently,thePBCwouldcanvassalltheCOCsfromvariousmunicipalities
and proclaim the elected provincial officials, including those to the House of Representatives. The
PBC would then prepare two sets of Provincial Certificates of Canvass (PCOCs). One set is
forwarded to Congress for its canvassing of the results for the President and VicePresident. The
othersetisforwardedtotheCOMELECforitscanvassingoftheresultsforSenators.
Astheresultsaretransposedfromonedocumenttoanother,andaseachdocumentundergoes
the procedure of canvassing by various Boards of Canvassers, election returns and certificates of
canvass are objected to and at times excluded and/or deferred and not tallied, long after the pre
proclamationcontroversiesareresolvedbythecanvassboardsandtheCOMELEC.
Ontheotherhand,undertheassailedresolution,theprecinctresultsofeachcityandmunicipality
receivedbytheETCswouldbeimmediatelyelectronicallytransmittedtotheNCC.Suchdata,which
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/163193.htm 18/23
6/18/2017 BrillantesJrvsConcepcion:163193:June15,2004:J.CallejoSr:EnBanc:Decision

havenotundergonetheprocessofcanvassing,wouldexpectedlybedissimilartothedataonwhich
theofficialcountwouldbebased.
Resultantly, the official and unofficial canvass, both to be administered by the respondent
COMELEC,wouldmostlikelynottally.Inthepastelections,theunofficialquickcountconductedby
the NAMFREL had never tallied with that of the official count of the COMELEC, giving rise to
allegationsoftrendingandconfusion.With a second unofficial count to be conducted by the official
electionbody,therespondentCOMELEC,inadditiontoitsofficialcount,allegationsoftrending,would
mostcertainlybeaggravated.Asaconsequence,theelectoralprocesswouldbeundermined.
TheonlyintimatedutilityclaimedbytheCOMELECfortheunofficialelectronictransmissioncount
is to avert the socalled dagdagbawas. The purpose, however, as the petitioner properly
characterizesit,isatotalsham.TheCourtcannotacceptastenabletheCOMELECsprofessionthat
from the results of the unofficial count, it would be able to validate the credibility of the official
tabulation.To sanction this process would in effect allow the COMELEC to preempt or prejudge an
election question or dispute which has not been formally brought before it for quasijudicial
cognizanceandresolutions.
Moreover, the Court doubts that the problem of dagdagbawas could be addressed by the
implementation of the assailed resolution. It is observed that such problem arises because of the
element of human intervention. In the prevailing set up, there is human intervention because the
results are manually tallied, appreciated, and canvassed. On the other hand, the electronic
transmissionofresultsisnotentirelydevoidofhumanintervention.Thecrucialstageofencodingthe
precinct results in the computers prior to the transmission requires human intervention. Under the
assailed resolution, encoding is accomplished by employees of the PMSI. Thus, the problem of
dagdagbawascouldstilloccuratthisparticularstageoftheprocess.
As it stands, the COMELEC unofficial quick count would be but a needless duplication of the
NAMFRELquickcount,anillegalandunnecessarywasteofgovernmentfundsandeffort.

Conclusion

The Court is mindful of the salutary goals that the respondent COMELEC had envisioned in
promulgating the assailed resolution, to wit: [t]o renew the publics confidence in the Philippine
ElectoralSystemby:
1.Facilitatingtransparencyintheprocess
2.Ensuringtheintegrityoftheresults
3.Reducingelectionresultsmanipulation
4.Providingtimely,fastandaccurateinformationtoprovidethepublicreelectionresults
5.Enablingthevalidationofitsownofficialcountandothercounts
6.Havinganaudittrailinitsownaccount.[58]
Doubtless,thesearelaudableintentions.Buttheruleoflawrequiresthateventhebestintentions
mustbecarriedoutwithintheparametersoftheConstitutionandthelaw.Verily, laudable purposes
mustbecarriedoutbylegalmethods.[59]
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisGRANTED.TheassailedResolutionNo.6712datedApril28,2004
issuedbytheCommissiononElections(COMELEC)EnBancisherebydeclaredNULLANDVOID.
SOORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Panganiban, Quisumbing, SandovalGutierrez, Carpio, AustriaMartinez,
CarpioMorales,AzcunaandTinga,JJ.,concur.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/163193.htm 19/23